|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 19:50:17 GMT
I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. What "works" psychologically for you has absolutely no connection whatsoever to whether it is true or not. Maybe believing in a flat earth works for you. Maybe denying climate change works for you. Maybe thinking vaccines cause autism works for you. Maybe denying the reality of evolution through natural selection works for you. Doesn't matter. In each case your belief is complete and utter bullshit. My belief is bullshit? How do you know that? Do you have any proof? I never said my belief proved anything.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 19:52:32 GMT
I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. I don't. You say believing "worked better" for you. I don't even know what that could mean. Worked better in what way? And why is "it works well" even a desired aspect of a belief? For me "is it actually true" is what matters when it comes to any given belief. This is not so for you? I was more successful and happy believing than not. Nobody knows what is "actually true".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 21:07:52 GMT
I don't. You say believing "worked better" for you. I don't even know what that could mean. Worked better in what way? And why is "it works well" even a desired aspect of a belief? For me "is it actually true" is what matters when it comes to any given belief. This is not so for you? I was more successful and happy believing than not. Is that your aim when it comes to your beliefs? That they make you happy? But is having beliefs that comport to reality not your aim?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2019 21:13:03 GMT
You won't believe this but your question only highlights that you are not really a "scientist" yourself. Excuse me, shit for brains, but footnotes and bibliographies are basic to any scholarly research and defense of arguments. The last time a single person could be a fully informed authority on every scientific subject known to humanity predated the word "science". So that means we depend on self correcting institutions of peer review and repeatable experiments to get the best, most objective knowledge possible. The fact that this has to be explained to you just shows how bottomless your ignorance of science is. Demonstrate that they are wrong, fuckwit. Just try. Actually, I am. Just because you are an ignorant hick who doesn't know what a trustworthy source of information is doesn't mean the rest of us have your problems. I'm still waiting for one of yours to demonstrate how they know anything other than believing what their chosen (incorrectly) authority says.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2019 21:15:29 GMT
I was more successful and happy believing than not. Is that your aim when it comes to your beliefs? That they make you happy?But is having beliefs that comport to reality not your aim? That is one way of describing a goal of economics. Economics can maximize the "opportunity cost" of transactions. Another way to describe that is maximizing happiness.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 21:36:22 GMT
I was more successful and happy believing than not. Is that your aim when it comes to your beliefs? That they make you happy? But is having beliefs that comport to reality not your aim? Yes, happiness is my number one goal. The reality is nobody knows whether there is a God or not. The only thing left is what we believe.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 15, 2019 21:42:45 GMT
Is that your aim when it comes to your beliefs? That they make you happy? But is having beliefs that comport to reality not your aim? Yes, happiness is my number one goal. The reality is nobody knows whether there is a God or not. The only thing left is what we believe. So the obvious question is 'Why are you happy to believe in something that is possibly, even probably or even almost certainly...not true? Also, if you have doubts,(which you obviously do) how can you actually truly believe and how can you be happy in your flawed/sometime/maybe belief in a God?
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 21:48:26 GMT
Yes, happiness is my number one goal. The reality is nobody knows whether there is a God or not. The only thing left is what we believe. So the obvious question is 'Why are you happy to believe in something that is possibly, even probably or even almost certainly...not true? Also, if you have doubts,(which you obviously do) how can you actually truly believe and how can you be happy in your flawed/sometime/maybe belief in a God? You believing what I believe is not true is your belief. It has no more a probability of being correct than my belief. That is the definition of faith. People know what they know. They have proof. People believe what they don't know. There is no proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 21:51:32 GMT
Is that your aim when it comes to your beliefs? That they make you happy? But is having beliefs that comport to reality not your aim? Yes, happiness is my number one goal. Okay. Then there's really no point in talking to you.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 21:55:57 GMT
Yes, happiness is my number one goal. Okay. Then there's really no point in talking to you. Why? What is your number one goal? And you don't want to be happy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 22:02:31 GMT
Okay. Then there's really no point in talking to you. Why? What is your number one goal? And you don't want to be happy? No, I wasn't trying to be rude, I actually meant it. If you're not interested in truth then it's literally pointless talking to you about anything.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 15, 2019 22:04:08 GMT
So the obvious question is 'Why are you happy to believe in something that is possibly, even probably or even almost certainly...not true? Also, if you have doubts,(which you obviously do) how can you actually truly believe and how can you be happy in your flawed/sometime/maybe belief in a God? You believing what I believe is not true is your belief. It has no more a probability of being correct than my belief. That is the definition of faith. People know what they know. They have proof. People believe what they don't know. There is no proof. That is absolute nonsense. You just contradicted what you said in the last post ie that no-one knows or can know if there is a God. So what proof can you possibly have?
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 22:04:22 GMT
Why? What is your number one goal? And you don't want to be happy? No, I wasn't trying to be rude, I actually meant it. If you're not interested in truth then it's literally pointless talking to you about anything. I am interested in the truth. The truth is there is no proof whether there is a God --- or not. All we have left then --- until there is proof --- is what we believe.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 22:06:36 GMT
You believing what I believe is not true is your belief. It has no more a probability of being correct than my belief. That is the definition of faith. People know what they know. They have proof. People believe what they don't know. There is no proof. That is absolute nonsense. You just contradicted what you said in the last post ie that no-one knows or can know if there is a God. So what proof can you possibly have? You misread what I wrote. Go back and read it again goz.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 15, 2019 22:10:44 GMT
That is absolute nonsense. You just contradicted what you said in the last post ie that no-one knows or can know if there is a God. So what proof can you possibly have? You misread what I wrote. Go back and read it again goz. It makes no sense whatever.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 15, 2019 22:49:20 GMT
It would be far more accurate to say that there's no surviving records that we've discovered.
That's not really surprising though. About 1% of writings from the Viking Age has survived until this day. And that was merely 1000 years ago. Imagine how much writings has been lost 4000 years ago or older.
Not to mention all the effort it takes to make writing from that long ago, makes writing a fairly rare and expensive occurrence. A monastery from say, year 800, wrote on vellum (prepared skin usually made of calf). The manufacture involves the cleaning, bleaching, stretching on a frame , and scraping of the skin with a crescent-shaped knife. It would take much of the resources from a fair sized village for a year and several months of work in order to make the paper they used to write down a few chapters of the bible. And the painstaking writing would have taken up the rest of the year. And that's a good year.
This kind of paper are more enduring than most type of paper, but all papers are very susceptible to rot.
The practice of using vellum disappeared around the 1500 when cheaper ways of making paper was taking over.
Almost anything surviving from say year 0 that are written down is only preserved due to extreme care, or because they are stored in places that are environments that have uniquely preservative conditions, such as dry desserts caves. But mostly we know of the writings because they are copied down from older writings several times over. And that's 2000 years ago. Half the time mentioned.
Of course there are writings carved into more lasting materials such as stone, but take a look at say this tombstone from 1743 and see how easily even those erode over time.
The gravestone is of Captain Andrew Drake (1684–1743) from the Stelton Baptist Church Edison, New Jersey BTW.
No, it's not at all surprising we don't have older written records.
Did older societies have written records? We don't know, and frankly I would be very surprised and very excited if we ever found any.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 15, 2019 23:22:59 GMT
I know absolutely fuck all about any scientific subject under the sun.;I won't believe this but only highlight that I am not really a "scientist" yourself. I depend on what I believe is "authority" for all my opinions and that is exactly how my opinions get so wrong. I am no judge of scientific authority. I am not capable of science because of childish faith. That is much like some other people fail to learn proper lessons from their religion despite their childish faith in it. Corrected. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 15, 2019 23:26:56 GMT
I find it odd how Evolutionists claim man has been evolving for millions of years and as modern humans we’ve been around for about 200,000 years. Yet there is no recorded history stretching further than 6000 years which coincidentally enough is how long many Christians believe the bible dates as the beginning of mankind. We have no writings, no battles, no wars, no countries, no carved stones, no nothing. If human evolution is true then surely it would be traceable far beyond 4000bc. Here Cody tries to have his cake and eat it - he suggests that history of man does not run before c.6000 years - a widely discredited claim ever since it was made hundreds of years back by Bishop Usher - and yet, oddly, does not want to admit to a fundamentalism which claims the world is just this age old and so attract the expected ridicule. LOL
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 15, 2019 23:42:29 GMT
No, I wasn't trying to be rude, I actually meant it. If you're not interested in truth then it's literally pointless talking to you about anything. I am interested in the truth. The truth is there is no proof whether there is a God --- or not. All we have left then --- until there is proof --- is what we believe. You've already told us, several times recently, that you don't think anyone can know anything about religion and God etc and, since the transcendental cannot be proven, it is all just a matter of belief. The holding of which of course you are fully entitled. The issue now is whether this view is enough to sustain repetition, especially since your epistemological views are hardly original or detailed. Insofar as anything you claim is likely to be meaningful it would by definition be meaningful only to yourself. And of course what is presented purely as a matter of opinion carries as much weight as any opposing views held on the same basis. Time to move along some.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 16, 2019 0:01:36 GMT
I am interested in the truth. The truth is there is no proof whether there is a God --- or not. All we have left then --- until there is proof --- is what we believe. You've already told us, several times recently, that you don't think anyone can know anything about religion and God etc and, since the transcendental cannot be proven, it is all just a matter of belief. The holding of which of course you are fully entitled. The issue now is whether this view is enough to sustain repetition, especially since your epistemological views are hardly original or detailed. Insofar as anything you claim is likely to be meaningful it would by definition be meaningful only to yourself. And of course what is presented purely as a matter of opinion carries as much weight as any opposing views held on the same basis. Time to move along some. I have the right to respond to posters who respond to me. If THEY were so sure of my position, they wouldn't keep asking me what it is. Or challenging it. If you are so tired of posters asking me the same stupid questions, maybe it is time for you to move on.
|
|